Whole-known-network
<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://snac.bsd.cafe/teajaygrey" class="u-url mention">@<span>teajaygrey</span></a></span> I still feel more or less that way about the constraints, except that I learned to appreciate the decisions that have been made in the context in which they were made, and once you do so, you see that some old systems were made indeed quite sloppily--well, you know, mostly Intel--while some had a great deal of forethought go into them, including that of extensibility and portability in many cases.</p><p>I'll keep my SoC from 2025 but I do still respect the SoC from 1985.</p>
<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://snac.bsd.cafe/teajaygrey" class="u-url mention">@<span>teajaygrey</span></a></span> it actually took me quite a while to come around to this idea because when I was young--basically a child--I found old systems distasteful due to the pervasive lack of now-understood-to-be-necessary abstraction, no serious support for things like internationalization, etc. I rebel against constraints and things like "the linker breaks if you have more 255 functions per TU" have always felt like a pointless constraint to me.</p>
<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/@MartinEscardo" class="u-url mention">@<span>MartinEscardo</span></a></span> Thanks for this advice; I typically write abstracts in the style you argue against, starting with background and then explaining contributions. I'm wondering, though, how you might recommend writing a transition between the contribution and the background in the suggested order - it seems to me like the information is presented backwards, then? Perhaps I'm just not used to this.</p>
<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@Popehat" class="u-url mention">@<span>Popehat</span></a></span> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgfOSV06nZ8" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">youtube.com/watch?v=HgfOSV06nZ</span><span class="invisible">8</span></a></p>
<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@gamingonlinux" class="u-url mention">@<span>gamingonlinux</span></a></span> </p><p>We really need a Steam Deck with more Ram.</p>
<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@dramforever" class="u-url mention">@<span>dramforever</span></a></span> not, like, inherently, but if i'm compiling something already, a full intellisense reindex makes the editor run at like 3fps for a whole 20 seconds. i ctrl+s instinctively very often so this interferes with my workflow a lot</p>
<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@dramforever" class="u-url mention">@<span>dramforever</span></a></span> this is completely fair but my problem with the microsoft thing is that it makes my desktop and the editor unusable</p>
<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> my personal problem with clangd is that it takes more setup than what i feel like dealing with c code to get it to do anything, whereas the microsoft thing seems to help a little bit with just any bunch of files</p>
<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@shriramk" class="u-url mention">@<span>shriramk</span></a></span> note for users of firefox (and possibly other browsers) who don't have a wapo subscription: </p><p>1) enter reader view</p><p>2) reload the page</p>
